Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.07.2019 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal (“CIT(A)”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2012-13.
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the order of ld. CIT(A), to the extent of various additions and disallowances is illegal, perverse and unjustified being without proper application of mind and appreciation of the facts and circumstances, Statutory provisions, Trade practices, and the explanations and evidences filed and on record. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1”(a) That under the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A), is not justified in making disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of payment made to Non-Resident for travelling, Professional/Managerial Services amounting to Rs. 78,41,993/-, so part relief i.e. of the amount of Rs. 65,79,361/- has been allowed to the assessee while no relief has been provided on the balance amount of Rs. 12,62,632/- to exhibit its products in “Domotex” which is an internationally acclaimed textile fair organized in Germany. (b) Without prejudice to above the appellant disputes the quantum of disallowance as highly excessive.
3. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual based at Panipat engaged in the business of manufacture and export of carpet, bath-mats, durries as sole proprietor of M/s. Jainsons Exports Unit-1. For AY 2012-13, the assessee filed her return on 29.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 1,52,44,910/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 30.01.2015 on total income of Rs. 2,51,00,900/-. During assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had made payments to the non-resident parties amounting to Rs. 78,41,993/- without deducting tax at source. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Karnal (“ITO”) sought explanation therefor and to show cause why demand under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act be not raised. The assessee responded by submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”). The Ld. ITO found that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 12,62,632/- out of total amount of Rs. 78,41,993/- paid by the assessee to non-resident parties without TDS. Explanation sought by the ITO was not offered by the assessee. The Ld. ITO, therefore, raised a demand of Rs. 2,43,688/- under section 201(1) including interest under section 201(1A) of the Act vide his order dated 18.12.2018.
4. On appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any relief. This has brought the assessee before the Tribunal.
The Registry found that the appeal filed by the assessee was time barred by three days and that it was not filed in proper Form. Hearing was fixed for 27.06.2022, 20.09.2022, 05.12.2022 and finally on 15.02.2022. 2 None attended for the assessee on any of the above dates of hearing. Ld. DR however attended all the hearings. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte on merits after hearing the Ld. DR.
We have perused the order of the Ld. ITO as also of the Ld. CIT(A). It is observed that the assessee’s AR made submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) who incorporated the same in para 3.1 of his appellate order. On examining the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 195 of the Act are squarely applicable and the case of the assessee is not covered by the specified list where payment is not chargeable to tax. The order of the Ld. AO was confirmed and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed.
As stated earlier, notices of hearing issued by the Tribunal remained uncomplied with. In the absence of rebuttal of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by the assesee before us, we decline to interfere.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.